A nose by any other name would sound the same, study finds

September 12, 2016, Cornell University
Credit: Paul Brennan/public domain

In a study that shatters a cornerstone concept in linguistics, an analysis of nearly two-thirds of the world's languages shows that humans tend to use the same sounds for common objects and ideas, no matter what language they're speaking. Published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the research demonstrates a robust statistical relationship between certain basic concepts—from body parts to familial relationships and aspects of the natural world—and the sounds humans around the world use to describe them.

"These sound symbolic patterns show up again and again across the world, independent of the geographical dispersal of humans and independent of lineage," said Morten H. Christiansen, professor of psychology and director of Cornell's Cognitive Neuroscience Lab. "There does seem to be something about the human condition that leads to these patterns. We don't know what it is, but we know it's there."

For example, in most languages, the word for "nose" is likely to include the sounds "neh" or the "oo" sound, as in "ooze." The word for "tongue" is likely to have "l" (as in "langue" in French). "Leaf" is likely to include the sounds "b," "p" or "l." "Sand" will probably use the sound "s." The words for "red" and "round" are likely to include the "r" sound. "It doesn't mean all words have these sounds, but the relationship is much stronger than we'd expect by chance," Christiansen said.

The associations were particularly strong for words that described body parts. "We didn't quite expect that," he said.The team also found certain words are likely to avoid certain sounds. This was especially true for pronouns. For example, words for "I" are unlikely to include sounds involving u, p, b, t, s, r and l. "You" is unlikely to include sounds involving u, o, p, t, d, q, s, r and l.

Christiansen, a cognitive scientist who studies language, and a team of physicists, linguists and computer scientists from Argentina, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland analyzed 40-100 basic vocabulary words in 62 percent of the world's more than 6,000 current languages and 85 percent of its linguistic lineages.

The words included pronouns, body parts and properties (small, full), verbs that describe motion and nouns that describe natural phenomena (star, fish).

They found a considerable proportion of the 100 basic vocabulary words have a strong association with specific kinds of human speech sounds. The study's results are conservative; the actual number of sound symbolism patterns may in fact be even greater, Christiansen said: "We wanted to show findings that we can really stand behind."

The findings challenge one of the most basic concepts in linguistics: the century-old idea that the relationship between a sound of a word and its meaning is arbitrary.

In the past 20 years, language scientists have seen glimmers of evidence that arbitrariness isn't necessarily an iron-clad rule. For example, studies have shown words for small objects in a variety of languages are likely to contain high-pitched sounds.

But until now, the research has looked only at specific word/sound relationships or small sets of languages. "People haven't been able to show whether sound symbolism is really something more pervasive throughout languages all over the world," Christiansen said. "And this is the first time anyone has been able to show that at such a scale."

The researchers don't know why humans tend to use the same sounds across languages to describe basic objects and ideas. But Christiansen notes these concepts are important in all languages, and children are likely to learn these early in life."Perhaps these signals help nudge kids into acquiring language," Christiansen said. "Likely it has something to do with the human mind or brain, our ways of interacting, or signals we use when we learn or process language. That's a key question for future research."

Explore further: Study: Word sounds contain clues for language learners

More information: Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1605782113

Related Stories

Study: Word sounds contain clues for language learners

September 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Why do words sound the way they do? For over a century, it has been a central tenet of linguistic theory that there is a completely arbitrary relationship between how a word sounds and what it means.

Languages less arbitrary than long assumed

October 1, 2015

It is a cornerstone of theoretical linguistics: the principle of arbitrariness, according to which the form of a word doesn't tell you anything about its meaning. Yet evidence is accumulating that natural languages do in ...

It's easier to learn words that sound like what they mean

February 11, 2016

What makes some words easier to learn than others? Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and Radboud University taught Japanese words to Dutch students and found that ideophones—words that sound ...

How arbitrary is language?

August 14, 2014

Words in the English language are structured to help children learn according to research led by Lancaster University.

Finding iconicity in spoken languages

September 9, 2015

Have you ever wondered why we call a dog a dog and not a cat? Is this an arbitrary decision, or is it based on iconicity—the resemblance between word structure and meaning? New research shows that for Indo-European languages, ...

Recommended for you

Chinese Cretaceous fossil highlights avian evolution

September 24, 2018

A newly identified extinct bird species from a 127 million-year-old fossil deposit in northeastern China provides new information about avian development during the early evolution of flight.

Ancient mice discovered by climate cavers

September 24, 2018

The fossils of two extinct mice species have been discovered in caves in tropical Queensland by University of Queensland scientists tracking environment changes.

The first predators and their self-repairing teeth

September 24, 2018

The earliest predators appeared on Earth 480 million years ago—and they even had teeth capable of repairing themselves. A team of palaeontologists led by Bryan Shirley and Madleen Grohganz from the Chair for Palaeoenviromental ...

Fat from 558 million years ago reveals earliest known animal

September 20, 2018

Scientists from The Australian National University (ANU) and overseas have discovered molecules of fat in an ancient fossil to reveal the earliest confirmed animal in the geological record that lived on Earth 558 million ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sep 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sep 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
2 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2016
Absolute trash. Learn some languages, maniac. Not a first one, in every nation there is one that spouts similar notions.
By the way, in slavic languages tongue is 'yazyk'.
small - malyj
full - velykyj or bolshoj
star - zirka, zvezda
fish - ryba

Some words match sounds because the languages have common roots, borrowing or by accident. But there is no law of cognition that makes this inevitable.

What is inevitable is the perpetual employment researching nonsense like this.
not rated yet Sep 12, 2016
did they also find out that words are likely to include at least one vowel?
not rated yet Sep 12, 2016
also let's take a look at basque, shall we?

nose – sudur
tongue – mihi
leaf – hosto
sand – harea
red – gorri
round – biribil
star – izar
fish – arrain
I – ni
you (sg.) – zu

Well they got the "r" thing in "red" and "round" correct...

I think they suffer from bias in sample. One should give more weight to isolate languages in a study like that. If they included 62% of world's languages, this means the overwhelming majority of those languages is probably from four or five large language families. Especially striking for personal pronouns, as those are very basal in the vocabulary.
5 / 5 (1) Sep 12, 2016
So the Finns and the Basque are aliens, everyone knows that.

Other than that..... Meh is Meh everywhere.
not rated yet Sep 13, 2016
All languages have common origins from man's exodus out of Africa. It would make no sense for the people to arbitrarily change vocabulary along the way, but rather for the words to evolve.

The most used words like for shape and body parts would evolve the slowest because there's a constant need for them and they must remain intelligible between generations.

Linguistics is one of the sciences where a lot of researchers are leftists and abhor any evolutionary or biological explaination of phenomena, because they've set out to prove that human features are determined socially and can be changed on a whim.
not rated yet Sep 13, 2016
A first! Everybody agrees..
These conclusions are bullshit
5 / 5 (1) Sep 13, 2016
Nose is Mukku- Moogu
It's a statistical relationship. Counterexamples are not evidence against that.
All languages have common origins from man's exodus out of Africa.
And all known life forms have a common ancestor. That doesn't prove that the distribution of a particular trait is best explained by descent.
From the paper:
If signals are inherited from an ancestral language spoken in remote prehistory, we might expect them to be distributed similarly to inherited, cognate words; that
is, their distribution should to a large extent be congruent with the nodes defining their linguistic phylogeny.
A direct evaluation of this hypothesis is infeasible due to the absence of etymological dictionaries for all but a few families. However, it can be tested indirectly given that cognate words are expected to be more similar to one another than noncognates.

5 / 5 (1) Sep 13, 2016
Ideally, a proper phylogenetic test in the context of language history would comprise some kind of data carrying a phylogenetic signal (like cognate sets or collections of regular sound changes) and a sound evolutionary model that would lead to a tree or a distribution of trees. Unfortunately, such trees exist for only a handful of language families (57, 58). Instead, we approach the question of both phylogenetic stability and ancestry of signals by analyzing word form similarity, which serves as a proxy for cognacy. If it is a correct hypothesis that signals render words less prone to change and that they are prehistoric vestiges, then, after controlling for concept, symbol, and lineage, we would expect to find that the similarity among words is predicted by signals.

Phys.org summaries lack the detail needed for an informed critique.
5 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2016
Don't Believe

Absolute trash. Learn some languages, maniac.

also let's take a look at basque, shall we?

These conclusions are bullshit

Just go to the linked abstract and all your misconception about the 'valuelessness' of this work will be rectified (i.e. one click could have saved all of you plenty of typing)
5 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2016
How quick people are to dismiss new research without a shred of evidence to support their objections! So it's not just restricted to climate change denial.

This research does at least support my own unscientific observations of many words in the English language. I can't support my anecdotal evidence from other languages, except to say that it appears to me that the sound relationship is more common in words of Germanic origin.

The first instance of my noticing the relationship between sounds and meanings in English was in words to do with the nose having the common sound "sn-". This is quite a nasal sound anyway. Consider these words: sniff(le), snuff(le), snivel, snort(le), snout, snot, sneeze, schnozz, sneer, snigger, snooze, snitch, snook. Even words like snaffle and snag have origins related to the pointedness of the nose. Is this list really a result of coincidence?
not rated yet Sep 16, 2016
thought provoking

Well we are all kin and humanity pretty much all thinks alike.
There is that lack of genetic diversity thing again....
not rated yet Sep 18, 2016
"You" is unlikely to include sounds involving u ... r u truly this stupid ??

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.